After much thought I've realized that people complaining about emissions
controls, i.e. original controls, not continuing emissions testing, are
generally missing the point, when they remove the "emissions junk". If we
consider what the average owner of a car manufactured prior to 1980 has to
deal with, they generally include the following devices: crankcase
breather assembly, EGR valve, air injection, and catalytic converter (very
late '70's for European-car owners).
The crankcase breather assembly has no adverse effect on
performance, and may even improve it, since it reduces the buildup of
sludge in the crankcase. It's been in use since 1963, even on
European-spec cars. I doubt if most people complain about this device,
but it probably gets removed along with the other equipment.
The EGR valve has been blamed for poor performance and fuel
economy. I don't know if it actually has those effects, but they're
probably negligible at most. Since all it does is return exhaust gases to
the engine to cool the combustion chamber, it shouldn't result in an
appreciable amount of power reduction.
It is entirely possible that air injection is a factor in reduced
performance, since it does consist of a rather large pump that runs off
the engine. On the other hand, since it blows directly into the exhaust,
it may improve exhaust flow. However, this improved flow is probably
outbalanced by the air pump. Nevertheless, I doubt whether it reduces
power significantly.
Finally, there is the catalytic converter. Most of the
controversy over this has come from its requiring unleaded gas. In any
case, as this list has repeatedly proved, lead isn't actually required in
any car, although some may know of rare incidents, where the lack of lead
ruined an engine. Besides this, the converter results in negligible
hindrance to exhaust flow and simply serves to burn off unwanted
hydrocarbons, much like power plants and steel mills have flames near the
top for the same purpose.
Why is it that people who complain about emissions controls seldom
look to the biggest drain on power in early emission-controlled engines,
the low compression ratio? You can see how the TR5 and TR6PI had 9.5:1
CR, but the TR250 and early TR6 carb had only 8.5:1, with steady
reductions to 7.75:1 and 7.5:1 (maybe even to 7:1; I don't remember).
Perhaps it's because that's the hardest part to change. Many people reset
the spark advance, and others replace their carburetors, but very few mill
their heads down, even though this would result in the largest horsepower
gain. I guess they're all just too busy griping about the other
"emissions junk", which is visible and easy to remove. Finally, at the
risk of sounding like I'm calling everyone deluded, could it also be that
whenever you make a change to your car, it seems to make an improvement?
So, big, tough, horsepower guy rips out a few hoses, finds it doesn't
detract from the performance, and feels like it actually helped
something, not knowing it's all in his mind, much like a placebo.
I hope I haven't offended anyone with this, but I felt I needed to
make a point.
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 CC79338U
Bloomington, IN
|